Pro-life

[anthony87]

It pretty amazing how young women are brainwashed into thinking that is alright to murder her own child in the context that it is not alive. The Pro-Choice movement keep trying convince young women to come into their money making abortion clinics and have abortion. The Pro-Choice movement care nothing about women or their babies. All they care about is their money.

Killing your unborn child is murder. Plain and simple.

Good thing we're not talking about killing unborn children then isn't it? We're talking about killing an undeveloped mass of cells that are just taking up space.

 

[Imat]

All I'll say on the matter is I'm glad my mom didn't choose to kill me in the womb.

I'd say it's questionable wheter it qualifies as 'you' for at least a fair period of time in the womb. Is it, in fact a person? It seems to lack the necessary mental faculties for the most part.

Also if your mom chose to have an abortion you wouldn't ever have cared because you wouldn't have been born.

So a person is defined as having some unstated amount of "necessary" mental faculties to you. So people who have to "pull the plug" on a loved one who is brain dead shouldn't feel sad about it at all, the thing on the bed is not, in fact, a person. Those people who cannot function on their own are not, in fact, people, and we shouldn't treat them as such. I feel like your argument is flawed in many ways.

To me a person comes into being as soon as the egg gets fertilized. The building blocks of a person are there, the dna of a person is there, just because it can't recite the alphabet doesn't mean it ain't a person. But I believe in choice. Who am I to interfere in the business of others? Just because the child could be put up for adoption, leaving the parent(s) with no responsibility, doesn't mean that abortion isn't a completely logical choice. I, personally, do not accept abortion as an alternative. What other people do to their unborn people is up to them.

 

[ShadowStar42]

It is true that the branding of the anti-abortion stance as "pro-life" is deliberately meant to make it sound more reasonable. However I would say the branding of the pro-abortion stance as "pro-choice" is basically the same thing, after all, people wouldn't support something called "pro-the right to murder unborn babies" would they?

I actually disagree with this on both points, but I'll just address the Pro-Choice side since, well that's the side I'm on.

Almost no one on Earth is pro-abortion, we pro-choicers don't like abortion at all as a matter of fact. We see it as an unfortunate choice thrust on a woman but we believe that it is her choice to make. Most pro-choice people would counsel against abortion if ever faced with someone debating it but we would conceit that it was not our choice to make. Saying that Pro-Choicers are Pro-Abortion is akin to saying that supporters of Euthanasia are pro-Old People Murder.

The fundamental argument in the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life debate is whether or not abortion is murder, that isn't a given in this argument. When a conceived zygote becomes a Person is up for debate, and even most pro-choice advocates don't believe that life starts at birth, but rather that it starts are roughly the beginning of the 3rd trimester (at which point the baby could potentially survive if birthed immediately).

The argument that person hood begins at conception fails for me for a number of reason (the inability to survive independently being primary of them) but one thing to consider is the legal implications. If person hood starts at conception then a woman's rights become largely void at the same point. If the woman drinks, smokes, participates in sports or even fails to maintain a health diet she becomes guilty of reckless endangerment at least and potentially manslaughter or negligent homicide. If the woman lives in an unhealthy environment she would be legally required to move, whether she could afford to do so or not. Really the implications are far reaching.

 

[Chemical Alia]

If it makes any sense, I'm pro-choice, but against abortion.

I feel that it's wasted potential. But I would never fight to stop someone from having one. I would just warn them that any regrets they have will be terrible and irrevocable.

It's good that you wouldn't try to stop someone who wants an abortion from having one. But do you really thing that some people don't experience the same regret after pregnancy and having a kid? Everyone handles things in different ways, and no one wants to be patronized.

 

[Xanadu84]

I'm pro choice, but pro life does not need to require sexism anymore then pro choice requires a hatred of babies. Pro lifers believe that a fetus is alive. Consciousness is a sticky subject, so how can we call that crazy? Now going from that reasonable but wrong assumption, we arrive at the conclusion that abortion is murdering a tiny, helpless, otherwise healthy human being. Look at it from there reasonable but wrong perspective. Should a woman have the right to kill a child? Of course not. Pro choicers simply see that that thing is not a child.

You know what's screwed up? Pro choicers make a big deal about lifers who are against abortion in cases of rape and incest, but really, the lifers that accept abortions in the case of rape are the creepy ones. Murder is okay if it lets you ignore an uncomfortable enough truth? Hell, at least the hardliners are consistent in matters of life and death.

Again, I'm pro choice. But the lifers arnt the monsters they are made out to be.

 

[jdun]

It pretty amazing how young women are brainwashed into thinking that is alright to murder her own child in the context that it is not alive. The Pro-Choice movement keep trying convince young women to come into their money making abortion clinics and have abortion. The Pro-Choice movement care nothing about women or their babies. All they care about is their money.

Killing your unborn child is murder. Plain and simple.

Good thing we're not talking about killing unborn children then isn't it? We're talking about killing an undeveloped mass of cells that are just taking up space.

That's a excuse that the Pro-Choice movement keep making to convince young women into letting them kill their babies for money.

 

[ZeroMachine]

If it makes any sense, I'm pro-choice, but against abortion.

I feel that it's wasted potential. But I would never fight to stop someone from having one. I would just warn them that any regrets they have will be terrible and irrevocable.

It's good that you wouldn't try to stop someone who wants an abortion from having one. But do you really thing that some people don't experience the same regret after pregnancy and having a kid? Everyone handles things in different ways, and no one wants to be patronized.

Of course not, I'm not that dense

But would you rather regret creating a life or regret preventing one?

If you have the kid, and you regret it, at the very least on average you can take solace in the fact that the kid may end up a good person living a normal life.

If you DON'T have the kid and regret it, you have NOTHING that you can look at for a bright side. Nothing truly substantial, at least.

Obviously it differs on a case to case basis. That's how the world works. I simply meant "IF you have regrets, there will be nothing you can do. You can't change an abortion. It's a one way deal."

 

[anthony87]

It pretty amazing how young women are brainwashed into thinking that is alright to murder her own child in the context that it is not alive. The Pro-Choice movement keep trying convince young women to come into their money making abortion clinics and have abortion. The Pro-Choice movement care nothing about women or their babies. All they care about is their money.

Killing your unborn child is murder. Plain and simple.

Good thing we're not talking about killing unborn children then isn't it? We're talking about killing an undeveloped mass of cells that are just taking up space.

That's a excuse that the Pro-Choice movement keep making to convince young women into letting them kill their babies for money.

Awh bless...he knows how to generalise. Even if that generalisation is horribly wrong.

What makes you think that pro-choice people are simply all about convincing mothers to kill their unborn children? I mean what they're about is right there in the name "PRO-CHOICE".

choice/CHois/
Noun:
An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

If pro-choice people really were the way you think of them, then they wouldn't be called pro-choice. They'd be called pro-let's kill all the babies.

 

[ZeroMachine]

I'm pro choice, but pro life does not need to require sexism anymore then pro choice requires a hatred of babies. Pro lifers believe that a fetus is alive. Consciousness is a sticky subject, so how can we call that crazy? Now going from that reasonable but wrong assumption, we arrive at the conclusion that abortion is murdering a tiny, helpless, otherwise healthy human being. Look at it from there reasonable but wrong perspective. Should a woman have the right to kill a child? Of course not. Pro choicers simply see that that thing is not a child.

You know what's screwed up? Pro choicers make a big deal about lifers who are against abortion in cases of rape and incest, but really, the lifers that accept abortions in the case of rape are the creepy ones. Murder is okay if it lets you ignore an uncomfortable enough truth? Hell, at least the hardliners are consistent in matters of life and death.

Again, I'm pro choice. But the lifers arnt the monsters they are made out to be.

FUCKING THANK YOU.

It's rare I see someone speak with such logic on that matter.

Seriously, god damn, you just made my day. I'm not a straight up pro-lifer, but even I hate it when I see how much they're demonized.

 

[Dan Steele]

I would rather have a woman get an abortion in a sanitary doctors office than have it be outlawed and she dies days later from bacterial infection because she got an abortion in an alleyway from a black market doctor

 

[Thaius]

Regardless of where one stands on the issue of Pro-Life vs. Pro Choice, this way of looking at it is painfully blatant pandering semantics. The term "Pro-Life" is specifically referring to the issue of abortion; to say it's an illegitimate stance because the term is far more broad out of context is just stupid and completely invalid in this argument.

 

[T8B95]

All I'll say on the matter is I'm glad my mom didn't choose to kill me in the womb.

I'd say it's questionable wheter it qualifies as 'you' for at least a fair period of time in the womb. Is it, in fact a person? It seems to lack the necessary mental faculties for the most part.

Also if your mom chose to have an abortion you wouldn't ever have cared because you wouldn't have been born.

So a person is defined as having some unstated amount of "necessary" mental faculties to you. So people who have to "pull the plug" on a loved one who is brain dead shouldn't feel sad about it at all, the thing on the bed is not, in fact, a person. Those people who cannot function on their own are not, in fact, people, and we shouldn't treat them as such. I feel like your argument is flawed in many ways.

To me a person comes into being as soon as the egg gets fertilized. The building blocks of a person are there, the dna of a person is there, just because it can't recite the alphabet doesn't mean it ain't a person. But I believe in choice. Who am I to interfere in the business of others? Just because the child could be put up for adoption, leaving the parent(s) with no responsibility, doesn't mean that abortion isn't a completely logical choice. I, personally, do not accept abortion as an alternative. What other people do to their unborn people is up to them.

What about all those fertilized eggs that don't stick in the womb? Are they people? Should they be counted? So you're saying that my cousin's girlfriend is a serial murderer because she has a deficient uterus and all of the eggs that get fertilized merely pass out of her system?

You see, I can make ridiculous statements too.

Maybe necessary mental faculties don't make a person, but there are other things that certainly do, a brain and a heart being chief among them. Since those aren't present at fertilization, the fetus can't be called a person, can it?

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

Thoughts? Okeedoke...

Carlin made some brilliant and insightful observations.
I agree with most of them.
"Pro-life" is a ridiculous term coined by spin-doctors (not THE Spin Doctors) and politicos to put a positive face on their confrontational attitude.
Pistachio ice cream tastes delicious.
Prinnies are awesome.
I like cake, but I like pie much MUCH more.
I sometimes miss my ex, but not the tremendous baggage she carried or the cheating...
The Smurfs was a movie that should never have been made.
I'm getting off topic.
I'm going to go back to getting dressed now...

 

[chadachada123]

"Pro-life" is definitely the wrong word.

My dad is pro-life and also pro-choice. He thinks that abortion is morally reprehensible but that it is not the government's business.

I, on the other hand, am both pro-choice and ALSO pro-abortion. I support abortions and find it morally reprehensible to NOT get one if you aren't absolutely committed to raising a child.

 

[bojackx]

The odds are that I'm just being stupid, but I didn't at all get the idea that this thread was about abortion until I saw the replies...

I'm all for women getting the choice. I wouldn't say it's really alive until a least a few months.

 

[YawningAngel]

Abortion is a societally convenient form of not-exactly-murder which has done a great deal to advance women's rights. While I'm not exactly sanguine about it, I accept that it's probably a necessary evil for a host of reasons, ranging from the consequences to people who would otherwise be denied one to the difficulty of policing a prohibition.

 

[JayElleBee]

All I really have to add to the conversation is this hypothetical situation:

A woman is pregnant and it is a pregnancy that puts her life at risk. Most pro-life people would say that she should be willing to risk her life to have the child.

However, she already has one other child, a son for arguments sake, about five or six years old, young enough to still definitely need his mother and old enough that he would miss and remember the mother if she were to die.

This puts the woman in a position where she must choose between her unborn child - a fetus that if aborted, won't know any the wiser - and her son, who will miss her, have to grow up without a mother and will always be left wondering why his mother chose an unborn child over him.

What would you recommend the mother do in this situation?

 

[ZeroMachine]

All I really have to add to the conversation is this hypothetical situation:

A woman is pregnant and it is a pregnancy that puts her life at risk. Most pro-life people would say that she should be willing to risk her life to have the child.

However, she already has one other child, a son for arguments sake, about five or six years old, young enough to still definitely need his mother and old enough that he would miss and remember the mother if she were to die.

This puts the woman in a position where she must choose between her unborn child - a fetus that if aborted, won't know any the wiser - and her son, who will miss her, have to grow up without a mother and will always be left wondering why his mother chose an unborn child over him.

What would you recommend the mother do in this situation?

Might as well put my two cents in- I wouldn't recommend a damn thing and anyone who does should be ashamed of themselves.

It's a brutally difficult decision for the mother to make if she really wanted that unborn child.

You should simply make both choices and the consequences clear, and let her choose. If you give your own input on it, all you'll be doing is pushing your views on her.

End of story.

 

[Erttheking]

All I really have to add to the conversation is this hypothetical situation:

A woman is pregnant and it is a pregnancy that puts her life at risk. Most pro-life people would say that she should be willing to risk her life to have the child.

However, she already has one other child, a son for arguments sake, about five or six years old, young enough to still definitely need his mother and old enough that he would miss and remember the mother if she were to die.

This puts the woman in a position where she must choose between her unborn child - a fetus that if aborted, won't know any the wiser - and her son, who will miss her, have to grow up without a mother and will always be left wondering why his mother chose an unborn child over him.

What would you recommend the mother do in this situation?

As a pro-life person, I do believe that there are a handful of situations where abortion is acceptable, this falls into one of those categorizes, frankly I wouldn't criticize the woman even if she didn't have a son already. I guess my main problem with people that are pro-choice is that they talk about abortion like it has the same emotional trauma as taking a particularly bad dump. Seriously, when someone has a miscarriage it's considered a tragedy isn't it? My aunt had a miscarriage and she was devastated by it. Why do people treat this like it's emotion free? I'm pretty sure that if a woman DOES have an abortion, there's going to be some emotional trauma, even if they did what they think is right, they just made a pretty big choice.

So yeah, I'm pro-life, I understand the point of those that are pro-choice, but I think that they're absurdly blunt about it. Seriously, their mindset is basically suck the thing out and throw it in the trash. (If you are pro-choice and do not think that way, I apologize in advance)